Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination more than 14 months after receiving an allegedly offensive email from his district manager.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for a response from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the Tribunal's process and waiting for another body's response did not constitute good faith, especially given the applicant's sophistication and access to legal counsel.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal warned the applicant that the application would be deemed abandoned if she did not respond within 10 days.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, challenging written discipline, an unpaid suspension, and an extended probationary period.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of two ongoing union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings addressing the same factual issues, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent airline, claiming excessive force was used when he attempted to board a flight.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking, or business under the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the matter falls under federal jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin.

A personal respondent, who was a franchisee of another store and allegedly made disparaging racial remarks about the applicant, requested early dismissal on the basis that she was not the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Code's protection 'with respect to employment' is broad and may encompass matters beyond a strict employer-employee relationship.

The Tribunal concluded that determining whether the allegations fall within its jurisdiction requires a full assessment of the facts and evidence at a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing and employment based on race, colour, place of origin, disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant alleged he was evicted and denied employment opportunities by the respondent housing co-operative for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if a prima facie case was established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, as there was no apparent connection between the matters complained of and any prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent Condominium Corporation failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent property management company requested an order to consolidate two human rights applications filed by residents of a condominium building.

Both applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the assignment of parking spaces.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the facts and issues were common and interrelated, and that consolidation would avoid inconvenience, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a civil court action, that the applicant signed a full and final release, and that the application was out of time.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing to determine these preliminary issues and ordered the parties to prepare submissions and evidence.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the last event was initially indicated as occurring more than a year prior.

The applicant provided submissions clarifying that the last event occurred later.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed out of time and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on overlapping facts and issues, which was at the arbitration stage.

The Tribunal found that the factors favouring deferral outweighed those for proceeding, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance/arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

During the hearing, after presenting his evidence-in-chief, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the remaining respondent.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination and reprisal requested an order directing that she and an employee of the respondent take lie detector tests.

The Tribunal denied the request, citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Béland, which held that polygraph evidence is inadmissible.

The Tribunal noted that the adjudicator must reach their own conclusions regarding witness credibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age, as well as reprisal.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to explain why it had jurisdiction over the respondent Union.

The Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discrimination against the Union, and therefore there was no basis to find the Union infringed the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that the Union be removed as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning its jurisdiction over the respondent Union, as no specific allegations were made against it.

The Tribunal also questioned whether the personal respondent, a corporate vice-president, was a proper party, as there were no allegations linking her to the alleged mistreatment.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining why the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Union and why the personal respondent is a proper party.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and reprisal.

The applicant recently informed the Tribunal that she would undergo a significant medical procedure imminently.

Given this extraordinary circumstance, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled hearing dates and directed the applicant to contact the Registrar when she is able to participate, no later than March 31, 2011.

The applicant, who has a severe latex allergy, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services after the respondent fitness club cancelled her membership.

The applicant had informed the club of her allergy upon joining, but later encountered latex balloons in the facility.

After a series of communications, the club cancelled her membership, stating it could not ensure a latex-free environment.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the cancellation constituted a failure to accommodate the applicant's disability, infringing section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $198.22 for out-of-pocket expenses and $2,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, who suffers from chronic pain, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to fund the long-term use of Demerol under the Ontario Drug Benefit program.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's policy, which restricted Demerol funding due to safety concerns, did not differentiate on the basis of disability.

The exception made for one grandparented individual was based on date and previous entitlement, not disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and failed to provide any new facts, evidence, or other factors that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, applied to the Ontario College of Teachers for a Certificate of Qualification.

The College refused to evaluate his application because he could not provide original transcripts sent directly from the issuing institutions in Iran, a requirement he could not meet due to his refugee status and fear of endangering his family.

The Tribunal found that the College's strict adherence to this requirement, without accommodating the applicant's circumstances, constituted discrimination on the basis of place of origin.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied the claim for lost wages because the applicant did not meet other mandatory certification requirements, such as holding a post-secondary degree and proving language proficiency.